Smart vs Solidum

Case Digest GR 204646 April 15 2015

→ Full Text ←
Facts:
Solidum was dismissed for dishonesty-related offenses. The Labor Arbiter ruled that he was illegally
dismissed and thereby entitled to reinstatement and full back wages. Solidum received the copy of
LA’s decision on July 13, 2006. Smart appealed before the NLRC. While appeal was pending, the
LA issued writs of execution covering the period of July 21, 2006 to January 22, 2009 for the
collection of Solidum’s the accrued salaries, allowances, benefits, incentives and bonuses.

In January 26, 2009, the NLRC reversed the LA’s decision. Solidum filed a motion for
reconsideration.

While waiting for the NLRC resolution, on May 4, 2009, Solidum filed before the LA an ex parte
motion for a writ of execution to be issued ordering the sheriff to collect from Smart his salaries, etc.
which accrued from January 21, 2009 to April 20, 2009. The LA, however, denied the issuance of
writ of execution on the ground that the NLRC has reversed its decision, so that Solidum is no longer
entitled to his claim of reinstatement when the NLRC decision was rendered.

In May 29, 2009, the NLRC denied Solidum’s motion for reconsideration. Copy of the decision was
mailed to Solidum on July 11, 2009. In its entry of judgment, it was confirmed that the NLRC May 29,
2009 resolution has become final and executory onAugust 10, 2009.

Issue 1: W/N the Labor Arbiter is correct in denying the issuance of writ of execution
No. The Labor Arbiter should have issued the writ of execution because its reinstatement order was
still enforceable for the period of January 21 to April 20, 2009.

It is a well-settled jurisprudential rule that employees are entitled to their accrued

salaries, allowances, benefits, incentives and bonuses until the NLRC’s reversal of the labor arbiter’s
order of reinstatement becomes final and executory.

Here, the NLRC’s May 29, 2009 resolution on Solidum’s motion for reconsideration became final on
August 10, 2009, as shown in the entry of judgment. Hence, Solidum is entitled to his reinstatement
salaries and benefits which started from July 13, 2006 and until August 10, 2009.

Issue 2: W/N August 10, 2009 is the true date of finality of the May 29, 2009 decision
Yes. Since the Entry of Judgment confirms that August 10, 2009 is the date of finality of the NLRC
decision promulgated on May 29, 2009, then it is so.
As a general rule under Sec 14 of the 2002 New Rules of NLRC Procedure, decisions of the NLRC
shall become final after 10 days from the receipt of the decision by the parties. But when there is
delay as shown by the absence of return card or certification from the post office, the finality of the
decision shall be determined by the Clerk of Court by giving 60 calendar days from the mailing of the
decision.

Here, it appears that there was no return card or certification or it was delayed after the copy of the
decision was mailed on June 11, 2009. Hence, an allowance of 60 calendar days was given for the
delay making it final and executory only on August 10, 2009. #
 Fonterra Brand Phils, Inc. vs Largado and Estrellado
Case Digest GR 205300 March 18 2015
→ Full Text ←
Facts:
Fonterra contracted the services of Zytron to provide for trade merchandising representatives
(TMRs) in the marketing and promotion of its milk and dairy products. Among those TMRs whose
services were engaged are Largado and Estrellado, who are the respondents in this case. After 4
years, Fonterra terminated its contract with Zytron and entered into an agreement for manpower
supply with AC Sicat. Desirous of continuing their work as TMRs in Fonterra, Largado and Estrellado
submitted their job application with AC Sicat, a legitimate job contracting company. AC Sicat hired
their services as TMRs for a term of 5 months.

When their 5-month contract with AC Sicat were about to expire, they allegedly sought renewal
thereof, which was allegedly refused. This prompted them to file for complaints of illegal dismissal,
regularization, nonpayment of service incentive leave, 13thmonth pay, and actual and moral
damages against Fonterra, Zytron and AC Sicat.

Issue 1: W/N Largado and Estrellado were illegally terminated by Zytron

No. When Largado and Estrella refused to renew their contract with Zytron by applying with AC
Sicat, they effectively resigned from Zytron. Hence, they were not illegally dismissed because they
voluntary terminated their employment with the latter.
Issue 2: W/N Largado and Estrellado were illegally terminated by AC Sicat
No. There is no illegal dismissal to speak of since AC Sicat is a legitimate job contractor and their
termination is merely brought about by the expiration of their employment contracts with AC Sicat.
First, Largado and Estrellado were hired as fixed-term or project employees of AC Sicat. The
determining factor of such employment is not the duty of the employee but the day certain agreed
upon by the parties for the commencement and termination of the employment relationship. Second,
the non-renewal of their contracts by AC Sicat is a management prerogative, and failure of
respondents to prove that such was done in bad faith militates against their contention that they
were illegally dismissed.

Hence, the expiration of their contract with AC Sicat simply caused the natural cessation of their
fixed-term employment thereat. ##
 Visayas Community Medical Center vs Yballe
Case Digest: GR 196156 Jan 15, 2014
Facts:
The NFL is the exclusive bargaining representative of the rank-and-file employees of MCCH (now
VCMC). NAMA-MCCH-NFL is a local affiliate whose union leaders proceeded to strike despite the
fact that it is not a legitimate labor organization. The respondents in this case are staff nurses and
midwives of MCCH who actively joined and were believed to have took part in committing illegal acts
during the strike. Consequently, MCCH terminated the union leaders of NAMA-MCCH-NFL as well
as the respondents. The CA, however, found that respondents cannot be considered to have
committed illegal acts since their participation was limited to the wearing of arm bands.

Issue 1: W/N the dismissal of the respondents is valid

Held:
No. Article 263 (a)(par 3) provides that any union officer who knowingly participated in an illegal
strike and any union officer or union member who knowingly participates in the commission of illegal
acts during a strike may be declared to have lost his employment status. Here, the respondents
merely participated in the illegal strike but did not commit any of the illegal acts. Hence, their
termination is not valid.

Issue 2: W/N the respondents are entitled to backwages

No. The principle of a “fair day’s wage for a fair day’s labor” remains as the basic factor in
determining the award of backwages. If there is no work performed by the employee there can be
no wage or pay unless the laborer was able, willing and ready to work but was illegally locked out,
suspended or dismissed or otherwise illegally prevented from working. For this exception to apply, it
is required that the strike be legal. Since the strike in this case was illegal, the respondents cannot
be awarded with backwages.

Issue 3: W/N the respondents are entitled to reinstatement

No. Considering that strained relations ensued, the grant of separation pay to respondents is the
alternative in lieu of reinstatement.

Jurisprudence states that the alternative relief for union members who were dismissed for having
participated in an illegal strike is the payment of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement under the
following circumstances: (a) when reinstatement can no longer be effected in view of the passage of
a long period of time or because of the realities of the situation; (b) reinstatement is inimical to the
employer’s interest; (c) reinstatement is no longer feasible; (d) reinstatement does not serve the best
interests of the parties involved; (e) the employer is prejudiced by the workers’ continued
employment; (f) facts that